Fearmongering

[Kenturion]

I understand that their aim is to catch the eye of a reader, but a headline like Fox News' "Scientists Not So Sure 'Doomsday Machine' Won't Destroy World" (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,483477,00.html) seems a little excessive to me, as does the link to the story from their front page, "Scientists Admit 'Doomsday Machine' May Destroy World".

The funny thing is that the scientists quoted in the article say nothing of the sort; they were only stating that micro black holes created in the Large Hadron Collider might possibly last longer than previously predicted. All of the talk of potential doom comes from the writer of the story, with brilliant comments like:
FoxNews.com can think of a few other things that didn't seem possible once — the theory of continental drift, the fact that rocks fall from the sky, the notion that the Earth revolves around the sun, the idea that scientists could be horribly wrong....at least it might explain why we've never heard from extraterrestrial civilizations: Maybe they built Large Hadron Colliders of their own.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that it's pretty depressing to see something like this passed off as "news." It strikes me as idle speculation on the part of the writer and fairly shoddy journalism, and the way that they're playing off the fears and uncertainty of the general public is really irritating.

Does this bother anyone else?

I realize that Fox News isn't the only one guilty of this, by the way; they just happened to be the one to get on my last nerve.

[TheEpicOfTyler]

I really dislike when people/organizations in places with the ability to spread rational thought and squash stupidity do the opposite.

[National Kato]

If it bleeds, it leads. An adage of journalism, broadcast included.

[AbeLincoln]

I really dislike when people/organizations in places with the ability to spread rational thought and squash stupidity do the opposite.

Agreed. Most fervently.

[MalReynolds]

University of Bologna in Italy Thats a wicked name btw

[Variable Gear]

If it bleeds, it leads. An adage of journalism, broadcast included.
That's not journalism, it's entertainment. Journalists have values, but entertainers don't.

Thus, Fox News, ESPN, CNN and any other entertainment-based source of news is a failure.

[Narradisall]

I've never considered Fox a source of news.

People watch the sensationalist reporting in their millions though. As long as it sells, they'll keep shoveling it.

When they turning this baby on anyway? (I know it got delayed). If only they could target it like any good mad scientist death ray at Fox's HQ.

[Purple Santa]

If it bleeds, it leads. An adage of journalism, broadcast included.
So true. I know the Hearst empire was built on that but i'm sure it was done before then as well.
That's not journalism, it's entertainment. Journalists have values, but entertainers don't.

Thus, Fox News, ESPN, CNN and any other entertainment-based source of news is a failure.

While I agree, there has always been the "entertainment" in our news. Yellow journalism is a perfect example. I'm not condoning it. I hate news on tv. But modern day broadcast news didn't invent the mixture of entertainment and news.

[Raen]

The other thing is this is a brand new model that doesn't appear to have undergone pear review yet, meaning that there may be gaping wholes in the paper pointed out by someone else in the scientific/mathematics community. They also state in the paper's abstract that they

Based on this analysis, we argue against the possibility
of catastrophic black hole growth at the LHC.

So basically the paper is showing that growth won't happen.

[Jeffool]

It's not news, it's business. If journalism only dealt in facts, and less in flashy animations with 'woosh' sound effects, there's the idea (right or not,) that people simply wouldn't watch.

Compare C-SPAN's approach of "here's the data have fun," to Fox News' or CNN's "let us tell you what this will mean (by way of telling you what we want you to think," and then compare their ratings.

[Inspector Fowler]

This all starts in college journalism. I work at the university with the somewhat infamous "Taser This: Fuck Bush" editorial. The editor still works there, and he continues this with headlines such as, "Screw Your Second Amendment Rights". The second headline is only to get interest/traffic, because the actual article describes how he owns a firearm and supports (in general, anyway) firearms ownership.

This is, of course, encouraged by his journalism professors. If you don't get eyeballs on your stuff, be it print or internet, you don't get revenue. So you better make it catchy or you'll be gone, is the moral.

[DarkDay]

Personally I think the existence of fox news is more of a nod to the intellect of the average American. If people down below had better education to begin with perhaps something like Fox wouldn't exist?


I Hate Fox, but I am always more concerned by the amount of people that watch it and believe it not too mention the many other sources for "news" In America...

[boratika]

"Just ask this scientician."

"uh?"

"He'll tell you that in nature one animal invariably eats another to survive."

[Johan]

Infotainment.

[Ox]

When they turning this baby on anyway? (I know it got delayed). If only they could target it like any good mad scientist death ray at Fox's HQ.
That's a terrible idea.

There's a fantastic halal food cart right in front of the Fox News building at 48th and 6th. Really, it's a national treasure.

[Ancalagon]

That's a terrible idea.

There's a fantastic halal food cart right in front of the Fox News building at 48th and 6th. Really, it's a national treasure.

Sacrifices have to be made. You lose a halaal food cart, the world loses a major cause of increasing ignorance.

[Narradisall]

That's a terrible idea.

There's a fantastic halal food cart right in front of the Fox News building at 48th and 6th. Really, it's a national treasure.

I've tried Halaal, no weapon forged by man could destroy it.

[5y1v4r]

This all starts in college journalism. I work at the university with the somewhat infamous "Taser This: Fuck Bush" editorial. The editor still works there, and he continues this with headlines such as, "Screw Your Second Amendment Rights". The second headline is only to get interest/traffic, because the actual article describes how he owns a firearm and supports (in general, anyway) firearms ownership.

This is, of course, encouraged by his journalism professors. If you don't get eyeballs on your stuff, be it print or internet, you don't get revenue. So you better make it catchy or you'll be gone, is the moral.
yeah, really the crappy thing isn't journalists trying to be entertainers so that they can draw people's attention, it's that that probably is what they have to do to draw people's attention. It seems these days like the vast majority of the populace really aren't all that interested in facts if they aren't presented in either soundbites or sensationalism. Responsible journalism is often met with resounding indifference on the part of the public.

[DangerousDaze]

What reputable news service would use double negatives in a headline? None that I'm aware of.

[Wasson_]

"Just ask this scientician."

"uh?"

"He'll tell you that in nature one animal invariably eats another to survive."

when I grow up, I'm going to Bovine University!